[Editor's Note: Our review was conducted on the 12/13 SFB, which is unchanged for 13/14 & 14/15, except for the graphics.]

It seems like forever ago that the first Line Sir Francis Bacon (aka the SFB, or, simply, Bacon) made its grand debut. With its wacky artwork and snowboard-inspired feel, the ski was one of Line’s and Eric Pollard’s collaborative lessons to the ski industry.

At the time, the Bacon was considered fat by nearly anyone’s standard (the original was 115mm underfoot), and this was especially true in the budding “backcountry freestyle” niche that the SFB helped take even more mainstream.

What was truly amazing about the Bacon was how playful and maneuverable it was despite its size. The combination of a soft but progressive and energetic flex, along with a short running sidecut and tight turn radius, made the ski feel much more nimble than anyone would have thought possible. For the freestyle-oriented skier, the Bacon was a game changer when it came to playing outside of the terrain park and applying your skills anywhere on the hill and in any snow condition.

The Bacon didn’t change much for a few years, but received a complete overhaul for the 11/12 season. When the new SFB was released, Line touted it as a quick, playful, all-mountain tool, and the changes to the SFB appeared to be inline with those claims.

The new Bacon has been slimmed to 108mm underfoot, has much less early taper (and therefore the running length of the sidecut is longer), retains its traditional camber underfoot, and now has both tip and tail rocker that is fairly long but with gradual splay.

Rocker Profile – 2012-2013 LINE Sir Francis Bacon

The ski is not a noodle, and its flex is definitely symmetric and progressive. The tip and tails also went on a diet with Line’s “Thin Tip” construction, which leads me into the next part of this review.

When I first jump on a pair of new skis, I usually bust out a couple groomer laps, then head out to the High T at Alta and give the skis a real test in terrain I love.

My first day on the Bacon, however, was a pow day with 10-12” of new snow on top of some frozen coral reef. Because it was late in the season, variable conditions were the theme of the day: some light pow early; some sun-affected damp pow later in the day; some zones of hidden, frozen mess; great groomers; and a few kickers. The SFB helped make the day a great one, and there were many that followed.

Jason Hutchins on the LINE Sir Francis Bacon, Alta Ski Area.

On my first lift ride up Collins on the SFBs, the first thing I noticed about them was how light they felt. At the time I didn’t know their overall weight, and I immediately thought they must be in the ballpark of the DPS Wailer 99 Pure, which I had been on earlier in the season. Turns out they are a few hundred grams heavier per ski (making the SFB still pretty darn light), but apparently because of the “Thin Tip” profile of the SFB, the ski feels lighter than it actually is while riding the lift, when skiing, and when spinning them through the air.

My notes from the first full day skiing started like this: “Tricky conditions, the Bacons crushed it.” Although the word “crush” might not be the best word to describe how the Bacon felt—and certainly wouldn’t be accepted by “charging, big-mountain skiers” out there—what they did do was allow me basically to forget about the skis strapped to my feet and do anything I wanted very comfortably.

Comments:

Hi, Dan. Stated weight and our own measured weights have been added. Have to say, LINE has been one of the most impressive companies we’ve seen with respect to the consistency of the weight of each ski in a pair.

The SFB and the Cochise are aimed at entirely different skiers. The SFB is a true twin-tip that is designed to turn the mountain into your own personal playground. The Cochise is more of a “charging”, metal laminated ski. It can be tricked although it requires more effort, is less forgiving, and has an overall much less playful feel. The Cochise loves to rail arcs down pretty much everything. Apples and oranges here, a more appropriate comparison to the SFB from Blizzard would be the Gunsmoke.

Hi Jason,
I just owned the SFB 2012/2013 178.
I took time to check the length with a straight taped pull and the result is 172 cm.
Do you think that it’s normal or would you assume that there’s a quality problem.
Thank’s for your answer.

Martin,
Great ski to compare to the SFB! I honestly thought about the Kung Fujas a bunch when writing this review. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to ride the newer Fujas, which is 102mm underfoot, though I would really like to spend some time on it. I did however spend a bunch of time on the 09′ and 10′ Fujas, which was 95mm underfoot, and I liked both. The 09′ version wasn’t rockered and I used it primarily as my hardpack, mogul, and park ski while at Taos, it was a blast. The 10′ had a small amount of tip and tail rocker which I felt decreased their hard snow perfromance, but I had moved to UT so I mainly used them at Alta when the snow wasn’t deep but still soft. They were also fun, but I wanted something a bit bigger and with a little more substance(flex).
To me, this Bacon shares a lot of the same attributes I liked about the Kung Fujas. They are quick, super playful, and can handle the whole mountain very well. I’d take the Bacon over those older Fujas’ any day because of the bigger platform, and even better all-mountain performance, while still being just as easy and fun to toss around in the air.

Aaron, as I wrote to Dave, there’s no chance that I would trust the SFB as my dedicated pow ski, and you’ve got 15 pounds on me. I really liked the Bacon, there’s just no way that it’s a better choice for you as a pow ski over the JJ.

Hi, Dave – Jason hasn’t skied the JJs yet. I spent about 70 days on the JJs 3 or 4 seasons ago, but I only got a day on the SFBs. So I’m afraid that you’ll have to take my comments with a grain of salt.

Both are really fun skis, totally intuitive, quick. I haven’t been on the JJ recently enough to compare flex patterns, but I believe that they are (relatively) comparable.

Again, I apologize for this pretty obvious statement, but if I was going to see more firm days on either ski, I’d take the Bacon. If I needed the JJ or the Bacon to make deep days a ton of fun, I’d go with the JJ. Especially at my weight (185), I would get some tip dive on the JJs (mounted on the line) when skiing really heavy, wet pow. So I wouldn’t chance making an even narrower SFB my deep day ski.

Hopefully we can get Jason on the JJ this season and he can post a more helpful comparison than this.

awesome review. I am myself owner of the 2012 SFBs in a 184 (same ski as the 2013 with different graphics – green tree design on white surface and rastafari coloured base) and have spent a considerable amount of the season on these in all conditions I could imagine. There are two things that you point out above that distinguish these from other skis in my opinion and that I miss in other – much shallower – reviews:

1. Firtsly, you mention the snowboard-inspired feel. This comparison in my opinion is best illustrated by how the ski behaves on edge with its even and well balanced flex throughout the whole turn and which delivers this surprising stability despite the moderate stiffness and also how the ski enables you to make slashes in soft snow when skiing naturals features like windlips and natural “quarterpipes”.

2. Secondly, you state that they feel lighter than they actually are, due to the very low swing weight: absolutely true! I have spent most of April on the Armada TST in the 183 length (mounted with Marker Tour’s F12) and on the 184 SFB (mounted with Marker Baron’s 13). The TST in a 183 weighs about 1950 grams per ski and yet when skiing them swing-weight-wise I could not tell any difference. They are still quite different skis with different strengths/weaknesses (as for the SFB I’d like to emphasize the strengths), but if you just look at the quickness edge to edge, the responsiveness in bumps and trees I could not tell the difference between the TST that is 6mm narrower in the waist (102 in the 183 length), had lighter bindings mounted, and is 250 grams lighter per ski. The SFB is incredibly agile and quick!

By the way, Adam of powderpoachers.net talked me into the SFB last fall – I understand he has skied with you in your “east coast days” – and if I hadn’t listened to him already I would have listened to your review. Awesome “blind purchase” (meaning buying a ski without demoing) with no regrets so far!

Thanks to all you guys (and girls) for spending the time to help us find the right ski (what I always wanted to know: do you sacrifice ski time for the reviews or did you simply quit sleeping at all?)

I’d also be interested in a JJ vs SFB comparison! Im about 160lbs and 5’8”. The thing i dont really understand is that the SFB has a wider shoverl and smaller waist then the JJ but how does that translate on the snow as far as float? Thanks for the awesome Reviews!

I am looking for a pair of skis to replace some k2 obsetheds from 2008. I have a pair of gotomas from this past year which i love but want another more playful ski. I have narrowed it down to the atomic blog, line sfb, or line opus. I am from the NW but go to school in CO so I need a ski that can function in both these settings. I generally like fatter skis which is why I am considering the opus but want to make sure I have a ski that can still be used as an every day ski. Also I have a dedicated powder ski so I’m not sure if the Opus is too much a dedicated pow ski to use as an everyday ski for Washington and Colorado. Any advice would help. Thanks!

Charlie,
I haven’t ridden the Blog yet so I can’t comment on it, but between the Opus and the SFB it sounds like you can’t go wrong with either of them. If you go Opus you’ll have a super playful, fairly fat ski that is a blast as long as you know its only real limitation (speed in adverse conditions), and when you feel like “charging” you have your Gotama’s. If you go SFB you’ll have a ski that can handle the harder snow days better, and offers a more traditional all-mountain park ski feel. Plus you still have your fatties in your quiver for the super deep days. The SFB is unbelievably quick on the snow and in the air, and while the Opus is definitely quick it does have a laid back attitude comparatively. Personally I’d choose the Opus over the SFB, but just barely, and that is because I prefer the overall feel slightly, and the extra width here in UT.

Im torn between the SFB and Opus… I currently have some Blends and im trying to get a more powder performance ski, maybe throw a touring binding on them. I just cant decide if the opus would be too much. I do spend a lot of time on groomers (wife and family) but I also do enjoy waist deep days! I demod the Opus and it was a terrible day so I got to test them on crud and real hard pack. The opus was fun, but didnt feel as stable as I was hoping at high speeds. Do you think the Bacon is better there? but on the days where im in the serious pow will the bacon be enough? Im thinking Im just going to have to demo them both same day to get a true feel comparison. Any advise for now???

And the review was awesome! Love all the reviews on here, you all do a great job!

Eric,
Both of these skis are incredibly fun, but have you considered the new Influence 115? Are you looking for an all out playful ride the SFB and especially the Opus provide? If so you are going to be sacrificing some of that high speed stability you are speaking of. If you want a little more stability I would lean towards something like the 115.

Thanks for your reviews! You guys made me interested in the Rossignol Sickle, but I’m also thinking about the Bacon and the Wailer Pure 112RP (/99/105). I’m 180 cm, weigh about 80 kg and like to ski both powder and grooms (where I like to hit it rather hard). Would you have any good advice for me? Maybe a comparision of the skis I mentioned?

I am an East Coast skier with a pair of Scratch BC WRS’s that I’ve had since 07′ and I’m looking to add a wider ski to my repertoire. I have been doing a lot of research and have narrowed it down to the Salomon Rocker 2 108, SFB, and Armada JJ. Could you give me an idea on the differences between them and what an East Coast skier like myself should consider?

Hi Jason, thanks for the great review!
I was looking a this ski for the upcoming season, but I dont want a ski that isn’t too stiff. I have a pair of mantras, but want a twin tip, and a more playful ski. Will this fit the bill? Also, could you compare the Rocker 108 to this ski stiffness-wise?
Thanks for such a great site!
Nick

Nick,
The SFB will unquestionably be softer than your Mantra’s, as will just about any “playful” twin-tip. The nice thing about the SFB is that it does have a balanced, progressive flex that is very predictable. In other words, it does not ski like a wet noodle.

There are similarly sized skis that do provide a slightly stronger flex while still being just as playful. My favorite is the Rossi Sickle, and the Kastle West 110 made a lasting impression while in Las Lenas this summer.

As for the Rocker 2 108, I rode the 190 cm length and found it to be stiffer than the SFB. The problem is that the comparison isn’t exactly “apples-to-apples” as many companies adjust the flex pattern for each length option. A comparison of the SFB to the 182 R2 108 would be more enlightening, and I would bet there isn’t a ton of difference, with the R2 being slightly stiffer.

Is these skis enough for me: me 6’3 and 190lbs. Sfb would be more offpiste ski for me and I’m looking for very playful ski that’s still fun at groomed and at park. Deepest pow I’ll be skiing is foot deep, but I’m still worried about tip dive because these are quite short skis.

At 6’3″, 190 lbs the ski is going to feel very small for you. It will work for you on groomers and in the park, but when conditions become variable off-piste you might be wishing for more stability.
One ski that jumps to mind for you is the 190 Kastle West 110. It isn’t as turn-y as the SFB, but it does offer more support for your size while still being very playful.

Hello. Great review. I am 6’2″ 180 lbs. I read your response to the guy who gave his stats at 6’3″ 190lbs and you said that it will WORK for park and groomers. Does that mean that is possible but a poor option, or that it is a good pair to invest in? I ride groomed runs with a preference for designated runs that are left untouched by machines. I am trying to explore more off piste riding this season and I have been looking at this ski. Does the sidewall have a consistent angle like the Opus? Also wondered what you though of the Magic J (expecting a heavy season this year in Tahoe). Thanks for any help you can provide and for maintaining this brilliant repository of ski reviews!

Looking for some advice on length for SFB for an active old fart (mid 50′s) who ski’s Mt. Hood and other areas in the NW….hint….”cement” and also gets around to Utah, Montana, and Whistler. Am 6’1″ and 180lbs. Been skiing for 40 yrs in trees, powder, bumbs, and groomers but am slowing down. Currently on 178cm Nordica with 98 under foot. Would you suggest the 178 or 184 as I’ve read they ski short? Thanks for the great review and response.

Thanks for the response Jason!
But, does the Kastle West 110 perform on the groomers? Or is it mainly on off – piste type of ski? I need a ski that performs well on both on and off piste, and from what I’ve read, it seems the bacon really is the best choice for me so far.

Nick,
I would have to give the nod to the West 110 for overall groomer performance. It definitely feels like a torsionally stiffer ski than the SFB. The only area on-piste that SFB outperforms the West is carving short, slalom like turns. Here the SFB’s tighter sidecut radius and snappy flex make the ski unbelievably quick and FUN. As soon as you pick up speed or need superior edge hold however, the West gets my vote.

184 SFB vs. 179 Influence 105
I am 5’11″ – 195lbs. Live in the east however ski 99% of the time in Utah and Colorado but want something I can ski with in New England. Agressive skier most of the time but sometimes like to relax. I ski the entire mountain and search for powder. 75% off trail / 25% groomers.

Jason, thanks for the review. Is was very helpful and I ended up buying a SFB. I’m 5’8″, I live in the East but I go out only on powder days and take 1-2 trips out west each year.

Those skis are amazing. I was fortunate to ski them after a 50cm (20″) snowfall and they were awesome. Great flotation, busts through crud like it’s not there, super smooth and easy for landing jumps. By the end of the day, it was moguls everywhere and I was very impressed by how nimble they handled through those bumps. Only down side so far is that on hard snow/ice, you can really see that they don’t want to be on that type of terrain, and you can feel them skidding. Not a big one for me since I don’t really care to ski on hard stuff.

what size sfb would you suggest for someone who’s 168cm tall and yet is on the heavy side, 185lb (trying to drop down to 170ish)…my skill level is in between intermediate to advanced?…I just ski traditionally, don’t do any park stuff.

Hi hope you can help as there are not many reviews for shorter skiers. I am 5’2″ and about 125-130 lbs in street clothes with an athletic build. I ski Southern Idaho (Boise to Twin Falls Area) so see anything from lighter powder to heavy stuff (concrete), cut up pow, crud, windblown crust, and thaw(rain)/Freeze (snow). I would however LOVE to make it back to Targhee or try Alta for a first time once or twice a year. I guess I would consider myself an intermediate/advanced type skier as I ski blacks but struggle on tough snow conditions and the bumps kill me. I am looking for a wider ski to complement my Nordica Afterburners 126/84/112@ 162mm (feel they may be a bit short though) and struggle getting them to ski deep snow.

I like to ski off trail unless its been a while since fresh snow then just accept its the normal runs. Not really a speed demon on the groomers to be honest but when I cant ski in the trees searching for powder or find untracked open bowls I want to at least be able to carry some speed down the runs. I have been looking at the 110mm range give or take so the SFB looks really interesting to me but not sure what length to (hopefully) demo. I was thinking the 172mm over the 178mm. I have also looked at the Armada TST and was suggested to try the 174mm. Not sure I want to try a 115mm wide ski (JJ, Opus, or Norwalk although you have not reviewed it yet) as the conditions are so mixed here.

I have never skied twin tips so hence no switch and not sure if that would be my thing and doubt I will do much, if any terrain parks but would love to learn to spin turn/surf on some natural drifts/burms etc.

Any help/advice is VERY much appreciated! To add I would like to keep the flat ski price at the 650-700 range.

Just did my best to measure running length. Boots clicked in and measured from contact point to contact point. Measured approx 140 cm. Just about same length as the 172 SFB the 178 measures 144 cm.
I do feel the 162 Nordica is a bit short when it comes to stability on fast (for me) groomers. Seems a bit twitchy but that could just be the short shovel on the tips? I am just unsure how a 178cm ski would be for a guy as short as I am in the trees?

Scott,
After reading everything you’ve written here I would recommend the 172 SFB. It isn’t going to feel super stable on groomers at speed though, so don’t get your hopes up there. The SFB has a short sidecut radius and is pretty snappy, so as I mentioned in the review at high speed they feel a bit twitchy. For every other aspect of your sking I think the SFB matches very well.

One other option you should seriously consider is the 2011/2012 174 Rossignol Sickle. Straight tape tip to tail measurement is 170.5 and it is 104 underfoot. It is hands down one of the most versatile skis every made, while also being incredibly easy to ski. As a bonus of going the Sickle route, most online retailers are blowing them out, so you can pick up a pair for around 300 or a little less.

I currently own the Opus in 178 and Influence 105 in 179. I want to purcahse the Sir Franics Bacon but my local shop only has the 184 in stock. I really like to give them my business because I like to give my money to local business’s. However both my Opus and Influence seem the perfet length at 178 and 179. I wanted to get the SFB in 178 but in reading your review it seems they ski shorter than either of my skis. Do you think that if I am having a great time on my Opus and Influence at 178 & 179 that I would be ok with the SFB’s in 184? I am 5′ 6″, weigh 165 and am an expert skier. I like to stay on the steeps and bumps.

I’m from the Black Forest and I’d describe myself as a very good skier. I’m looking for a new ski mainly for freeride (with some jumps and tricks) and some touring. So far my favorite was the SFB.

BUT I’m 186cm tall and my weight is 90kg (200lbs). From the previous comments I noticed that you’d recommend the SFB 184 as too small. So now I’m looking for alternatives e.g. Kästle XX 110 or the Opus.

I’m really wondering why Line does not offer the SFB in 192cm as the Opus? Do you know if e.g. next season Line will add an additional length for the SFB? I mean, I’m not the only guy >185cm…I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of people with the same problem.

Steffen,
You wouldn’t find me complaining if Line made the SFB in a longer length either. I’ll keep my fingers crossed with you. If you are a finesse’ skier you might still do o.k. on the SFB, but at your size you definitely would be pushing it.
I’ll also add, don’t be afraid of a little extra width with the Opus. Like I say in the review, if I were to chose between the two I would pick the Opus hands down, especially for off-piste and touring. Yes it is a bit heavier, but the ski is such a blast to ride it’s worth it.

Jonathan,
Thanks for the recommendation on the 184′s. Bought them yesterday and had them mounted and went skiing on them today. All I can say is everytime I ski a new pair of Lines the new ones are better than the last. I thought it couldn’t get any better than my Influence 105′s then I bought the Opus. Then I didn’t think it could get any better than the Opus and skied the Bacon’s and liked them even more. So now I have 4 pair of Line skis and am very happy with all of them. Can’t have enough Lines my favorite brand by far.

I am 5’8″ and 155# and I have a pair of the 2012 SFB in a 178, but I am not WOWed by them. They skied great in fresh conditions, but I felt like I was going to go over the handlebars when the snow got a bit heavier. I also felt that wanted to lock into one turn shape (small) on the groomers and were sketchy if you tried to point them straight on a Cat track.

I am not sure if a more centered mounted ski is for me and that maybe I should look for a more directional ski. I like a fun and lively energetic ski, not something planky, but I don’t ski backwards or get tricky in the air.

Everything that I read says that I shouldn’t move the binding back, so I am considering replacing them. The skis that I am looking at are the Gotama, Atomic Automatic, or Rocker2 115. Am I on the right track.

Hey Jason,
It sounds to me like you would have been much happier with the 184 SFB. The skis you mentioned are all much less “playful” than the SFB, and also a bit larger. If that is what you are looking for then they are all great skis, but quite different from each other. If you want to stay closer to the SFB’s intended uses, in the Rocker2 line you might prefer the 108 over the 115 for fun and liveliness. One ski you might also consider in the Praxis MVP. It is light and lively like the SFB, but has a much longer turn radius, and is stiffer overall, which makes it much less twitchy. .

I currently have the Bentchetler in a 192 and a Mantra in a 184. I am enjoying the Bents on very deep days and the Mantra on everything else. While the Mantra kills is on groomer, icy, bumps, etc not quite as fun in tight tracked out trees or more playful skiing. The Bents are a blast in fresh snow, and while they can handle other conditions, if I’m not flying down untracked deep they a re a LOT of work (for me).

After all that I ended up grabbing the PB&J in a 188. I was a little worried of, like what you said, overlap with my Bentchetlers. With the PB&J only being 101 underfoot but still having tip and tail rocker I’m hoping it will become my go-to ski while using the Mantra and Bentchetler for Ice and Deep respecively.

Amazing review. Sorry to be the hundredth person to ask this, which size for me? I’m 5’7″ 145 expert skier, I’m leaning toward the 184s, my only hesitation is that I want something that fast in the trees. Does the increase in stability from the 184 vs the 178 out weigh the loss of quickness/agility or is the 184 just a snappy in the trees?
Thank you

James,
You’re right on track leaning toward the 184. There is absolutely no shortage of quickness with the longer length, and because it is so light and quick (almost twitchy) you will appreciate the added stability of the bigger size.

Hey everyone. You do an excellent job of commenting on all aspects of the products you are reviewing. I have come to really trust this site for its unbiased feedback and real world testing. Mountain bikes, skis, and other stuff. That said I am currently skiing the Atomic Access 181 cm length ski. I am 56 years old; I have been skiing since I was 15. I am 5-11 and 200 lbs. I would describe myself as able to ski anything, but age, insight, and former injuries have me a little more cautious these days. I ski between 5 and 20 days a year, out in the West (Tahoe, Schweitzer, Mammoth, Alta). What drew me to the Atomic Access was the ability of the ski to cover groomers and pow so well. Their shortcoming and most frustrating feature is they can’t hang in crud. You know, hop off a groomer, through some trees, on already skied snow that fell two days ago, and that is what I mostly run into on my trips. If I am lucky enough to get powder, they are fine. If I get corduroy all to myself early in the day, they are a blast. But I mostly get the crud, which I like, but my skis don’t. I am thinking the SFB’s are the answer this year after spending countless hours reading and comparing your comments. What do think? If you offer an alternate option I would appreciate a recommended length of ski as well. Thanks for the great reviews and support of the sport.

Mark,
The Bacon will no doubt be better in the crud than the Access, and I would definitely recommend the 184 for you. That being said, it is still not what I would consider to be a crud crusher. It requires a balanced stance and finesse.
As usual, my top recommendation for you would be the 11/12 Sickle. I know I recommend that ski a lot, but ask anyone you see on them what they think and you’ll see why. For what you are looking to ski, and where you are skiing, the Sickle will be the easiest ride.

Hello, Great review. My son (5’9 ~135) got the 178 SFB 11/12 at the beginning of last season and he LOVES them to death. At the end of last season, I was getting tired of not being able to keep up with him in the pow on my Atomic Sugar Daddys (99 under foot). I am 5’10 & ~160, I decided to get some 11/12 Opus’. I went with the wider Opus for the better float. I got the 178′s, mainly because they were over $300 cheaper than the 185s at the end of last season. I haven’t had a lot of Big pow days to really see what the Opus’ can do. Initially I was a bit dissapointed in that my sons Bacons, as you described, were more playful and poppy than my Opus’. But I have been enjoying the Opus’ In the little pow we have got in the NW (White Pass mostly) this season, and on the groomers (when stuck there) as well.

I have 2 questions, You have said you would pick the Opus’ over the SFBs, but unless I missed it, you really didn’t say why (other than float), Can you elaborate on what you like better about the Opus’, to make me feel better about my purchase. Also, since I got the 178s over the 185s, would you recommend, or not, mounting my bindings maybe 2cm back to have a more similar amount of ski in front as the 185s?

Brad,
I do prefer the Opus to the SFB, and that is mostly because I find it more versatile overall. The additional width obviously provides more float in pow, but more importantly to me, is more confidence inspiring when conditions become variable. The SFB can also feel a bit twitchy at times, while the Opus never does, allowing me to focus on the things I need to.
I also find the Opus to be just as playful as the SFB. It’s only subtly less energetic and only slightly heavier, so I just have to work a touch more. Both skis are basically effortless in this department however, compared to most skis on the market.

While I think you should definitely be happy with your choice of skis, I think you made a little mistake in going with the 178. I wouldn’t move the bindings back, because it will likely have an adverse effect on how supportive the tails feel, and the balance of the ski.

Thanks, It was 178 or nothing, I couldn’t afford the extra $300+ for the 185s. And from the size chart on Lines web page, they aren’t to small, but you are right, 185s would have been better. Also thanks for the the thoughts on mounting.

hey jason. iam tom from germany skiing a 180cm liberty park ski the past years. i spend a lot of time in the trees and love the pow a lot. the liberty (90) are way to small to really have fun with in backcountry thats because i wanna get a new bigger pair. i love to ski the trees and the pow and want to buy a new pair this year. it should be a pair having fun with in the backcountry but still be stable on the groomers because can not effort buying many pairs. i want one ski which can handle all of it.
i thought about the SFB after all the good review but its too small. iam 6,2 and weight 160 pound. now iam looking at the kästle in 190. can you say something about its behaviour compared to the SFB on the groomers?! you mentioned that the kästle is not quiet as quiet in fast turns in some comment before!? is there another one you would recommend which is a little more agile??? mb greetings from hamburg, germany. tom

Tom,
Line is making the SFB in a 190cm length for next season! If you can’t wait, the Moment Deathwish and Salomon Rocker2 108 feel more like the SFB than the Kastle, with the Salomon feeling the closest.
The Kastle feels more stable on groomers compared to the SFB, at the expense of nimbleness and energy level. I certainly had more fun on the SFB ripping slalom turns down groomers than the longer GS turn of the Kastle.

Honestly, I’m 6′ and weigh 160lbs and had a total blast on the 184 SFB. Considering you are coming from a smaller park ski, you may feel o.k. this season on the 184 Bacon. If you decide you want to size up next season, you could just sell the 184′s in the fall!

hey jason,
thanks for the answer. i already decided to buy the kästle because i got a good deal on it. they are shipped right now. i will mount my marker duke bindings.
any advice for the mounting location??? that would be very helpfull.
I hope they gonna be just right for me, Ohh yeah. from next week on iam rocking the alps for a month. skiing everyday, cant wait!!!
thanks for the advice, great HP.
greetings. tom

I’m a big fan of your reviews and I live in Hong Kong. I do most of my skiing in Japan – this season I’m in myoko kogen and Niseko so we get constant (often deep) light snow this time of year. I’m currently riding the Sir Francis bacons 2011-12 in 184. I like the fact it’s easy to ski but am looking for something that’s wider and more stable in crud (find the tip on the bacons easily deflected). I also find the bacons a bit unstable on groomers with quite a bit of tip chatter. Which ski would you recommend? I need it to be a one ski quiver as I travel from Hong Kong with my skis.

I’m 6’0 180lbs and have had an acl reconstruction a few years back (find that after a few days of hard skiing the muscles and ligaments around the knee tend to tighten up) so would be looking for something that’s easy to ski while offering more float and stability in powder and crud (I spend most of my time off piste but would need the ski to be able to hold an edge on groomers while catching the next lift).

Nick,
I think the most logical jump would be up to the Opus. I found it to offer greater stability everywhere on the hill, even on hardpack, while also offering more float in powder and across crud.

Yes, the Bibby Pro is another great option, though not as easy to ski as the Opus.

One ski that I have thoroughly enjoyed on our deep days this season (which turn to crud/chop very quickly), is the 2013 Atomic Bent Chetler. You will be able to read my review this week for the details.

I rode my bacons in niseko this season and if I had a choice I’d definitely have liked more with under the waist. On 20-30cm days the bacon was fine but it struggled a bit floating in the really big dumps.

Matt,
Since you are skiing in Japan, there is absolutely no question I would recommend the Opus. In my opinion, there isn’t a better ski out there for the snow and terrain you will be riding. It will blow your mind how quick it is and is a perfect match for your style.

Right I am 5’9 70kg or 150lbs and am swaying between the SFB’s the Armada TST’s or The new Kung Fujas. I like to ski everywhere on the mountain and mainly in Chamonix so in all snow conditions. Would just like some thoughts or recommendations please?

Was also considering a pair for deep powder ski’s and a separate pair for more on piste and playing in park and tree’s but thinking at my height and weight maybe one of these would do it all even in the deep stuff.

Jason, I went for the 172′s. They defiantely have a speed limit on the groomers but its much faster than I expected. ANd its its an icy groomer day Ill just run my Nordicas. Finally had a chance to try them off piste it the trees and under the lifts etc with about 8-10 inches of powder (tracked up very quickly too). Decent float and easy to manuver around quickly it the shorter length. Its not as much float as I was hoping for but still quite good, especially as I came off of 84mm waisted skis. As an all mountain one ski do it all they are pretty damn good. If we typically got more snow here in SW Idaho I may have gone for the 178′s for more surfce area. Having said that the Opus would be better suited for that, shame its not done ina 172. That could be the perfect dep powder/tree/off piste ski for me. Mounted them up with the FKS 14 and loving that binding too! Plus the flouro orange helps find them if lost in deep snow. Additionally I wont the base color lottery. Instead of the Red/Blue they are Black/White. Im likeing that much better!

Jason and Jonathan
I am a 39 year old 5’11″ male who weighs around 180 lbs, but usually hover around the 170-175 range. I live in So Cal and ski Utah, Mammoth, and Tahoe ever year for about 10 days. I would consider myself advanced. Not quite an expert but love the trees and like to mess around off the groomers. Even hit the park for some fun but nothing too crazy. Heard so many good things about the SFB that I am ready to buy without being able to demo. I am coming from older Salmon Guns at 175 cm length. I have 2 questions so I can purchase and receive before my next trip:
1. What size SFB would be ideal, 178 or 184?
2. Which bindings would you recommend? The Look Pivot 14 XXL or the Marker Jesters? Was leaning toward the Looks.

Tony,
The SFB is incredibly easy to ski and has a super light swing weight, so I wouldn’t be too reluctant going with the 184′s (also remember that they actually measure quite a bit shorter at 180.5cm). You will most likely prefer the added stability and float in pow/crud of the bigger length. If you want them to be insanely quick, and maybe a little nervous at high speeds, then you could go with the 178 (which, again, will be shorter than that stated length).
As for bindings, Pivot 14 hands down!!!

Thanks for the reviews guys,
I picked up the bacons in the 184. I’m 6’1″ 210. I wouldn’t say I’m an expert but I don’t have much problem going anywhere. I like the ski and had a good time with them in Alta and Snowbird but feel that there may be a better ski out there considering my weight. I ski around 10 days a year in Utah. Sometimes powder, sometimes not. Luck of the draw. I only want one ski and after hours of ready reviews, I’m leaning towards the Moment Bibby Pro. I also know the next year bacons are coming in 190s which would help. What are your thoughts on the Bibbys vs the Bacons for my weight as a one ski?
Thanks,

Cole,
Both the 190 Bibby Pro and the new 190 SFB will be great options. They are quite different, however, and it will depend on the nature of your skiing to decide which will be a better fit. The Bibby is quite a bit wider and definitely has the upper hand when it comes to skiing aggressively. As you know, the SFB on the other hand, likes a little more of a gentle touch, but has an incredible playful feel that the Bibby just doesn’t offer (at least in the 190 length).
You can’t go wrong with either, just decide which sounds the most appealing.

Thanks Jason,
Would I be wrong to look at the 184 bibbys for a little more playfulness over the 190 bibbys? I do ski hard and aggressive. I guess my question is, would I be better suited with the 184 bibbys or the 190 SFB for a one ski do all?
Thanks,

I’m currently riding the 2010/11 Bacons, which were a bit softer, wider and maybe had a bit more rocker.
I was thinking of upgrading to 2013/14 Bacons next year, but was wondering about the length I should get.
I’m 6’3” tall and 185 lbs, so most people would suggest the 190 for me, but I’m really hesitant about sacrificing the playfulness and jibby nature of the ski. The Bacons I’m skiing now are 182 long, and I haven’t felt like they are too short.
But another factor is that I have my current Bacons mounted at -6cm from true center, and I will mount the next year’s model at ‘Eric’s Choice’, which is -2cm, for improved switch riding and even more playfulness.

Also, I will start some minor touring on the next year’s model, but I don’t want the binding to limit my ability to do backcountry booters or to sacrifice the playfulness and downhill performance one bit. Do you think the Baron or next year’s Guardian 13 (since I never go higher than 9 DIN anyways) would allow me to do just that? Or would I have to get Trekkers or keep using snowshoes, if I want to keep them as fun as possible? I also read your review of the MFD Alltime Plate, but it seems like it wouldn’t be the best for the most playful of skis.

Mikael,
Considering your size and your plan to mount at the recommended line, if you are a solid skier living in a high snowfall area I would have to recommend the 190. I’m 6′ and 160lbs and found the 184′s to work great, but would have no reservations moving up to the 190.

If you are only doing minor touring, like hiking a short distance to hit a jump, I would have to go with a Trekker. To me it wouldn’t be worth the extra weight, stack height, and dampening of a full fledged A/T binding for such small outings. You will have to be very careful with them. If you are planning on much more time then that I’d go with the Baron or Guardian 13.

Alright, thank you very much for the insight, I will have to read much more on the reliability of Guardians/Barons, especially since I even managed to wreck Look P14 bindings on a sketchy switch landing off of a backcountry booter (although they most likely saved my knees).
Oh, but do you think the extra-wide platform on the new Dukes could make it worth it to get them over the Barons, as I haven’t seen the new Barons offered with this feature.

Anyways, having had time to read all your thorough reviews, I’m going to have rethink my whole setup choice. You guys sure are making it hard for me to decide what I want.

Awesome site for discussion. I feel like I just found a gold mine here.
I’m stuck though…
I’m looking for that impossible one quiver ski. I’m 6ft, 185lbs. Live in Toronto, Canada but this setup is intended for west coast big mountain skiing (Revelstoke, Kicking Horse, Fernie). I’m just starting to get into ski touring. I’m not a purest and want to make sure I’ve got a ski that is light(ish) for the 2 touring trips a year but also crushes on the downhill for every other trip. I’ve been reading and reading and have come to consider these skis but need some expert advice to wade through all the reviews.
Atomic Vantage Ritual
Voile Charger
Blizzard Cochise
Kastle FX104
DPS Wailer (maybe 105’s??)
I love trees so tight turns tend to be required. I’ve been skiing for 35 years, all mountain, back/slack/side country but also resort. Fairly aggressive skier and want a fun ski. I think I’m looking for something with a waist between 100-112mm as they must be able to float well.
I’m curious on what you think of the above AND/OR if you would throw these others into the mix.
Line Sir Francis Bacon
Scott Punisher

Last question is on length. I’m currently on a Salomon Lord 177. I can’t imagine going to a 190 but something in between?

What would you suggest?

This is really setting up for next year, so I’m trying to learn and see if there is anything worth grabbing on sales now.

Last month I asked his advice on what ski he would recommend for me based on my proficiency and requirements. He answered correctly. I didn’t listen. Not that what I ended up with wasn’t a good ski (SFB-184 length). In fact, they are quite good skis, just not what I need for that one-ski-quiver for all mountain skiing. The SFB’s are really playful, quick, light, and poppy. They go well in crud and in trees. Good on corduroy groomers. They make quick, slalom’ish turns really well. Where I made the mistake is that I am 6’-0” and I weigh 220 lbs fully geared up. I ski all over the mountain and mostly do larger GS style turns with some speed and I overpower the skis doing that.

So I am selling the Sir Francis Bacons. They have two days of skiing on them and are in new condition. They have Look Pivot 14 bindings mounted on them (again, a Jason recommendation where at least I listened) installed for a boot sole of 317 mm. I will sell them with or with out the bindings. If anyone is interested, let me know. Otherwise, listen to Jason when he recommends a ski for you.

Jason,
I am 6’5″ 185 lbs. I skied the Armada Al Dentes and the Line ‘Opus this past week. Wasn’t able to ski the SBF’s (demo’s sold) but everything I have heard tells me that is my ski. I liked the quick, snappy, light feel of the Armada’s but wanted a wider ski. I had an awesome day ripping heavy crud on the Opus’ but thought it wasn’t quite as nimble and light as I would like for our average conditions. Should I wait for the 191′s next year or do you think this years 184 is ok?
Thanks,
Rick

I’m considering buying the Line SFBs vs the Opus since there are some great deals now in the off season. I’m 5’9″ and 145 lbs. I used to ski Salomon 1080 Foils in the 174 cm length but found them limiting in ice/crud. I picked up a pair of Volkl Bridges in the 179 cm length last year but don’t find them playful enough. I live in Colorado and consider myself an expert skier and can ski anything and am looking for the elusive one quiver ski that would excel in the trees, chutes, moguls and powder but also be able to handle speed and crud on steep runs. Any suggestions on the SFBs vs Opus and the length?

the ski fever got me and I’m now looking for a more playful ski for powder days and bumps. I have the rossignol experience 88 170 cm as an all mountain. I ski in east Coast, Quebec. But since a few years, we got a lot more snow during the winter, like 9-10 meters. So I’m considering the SFB and Opus from Line , and the sickle and the s7 or s3 from Rossignol. I am 168 cm and 160 lbs. Should I go with a ski around 178-180 cmor a little bit more like 185- 188 cm. I should precice that I telemark.

I love your reviews and am seriously considering the SFBs. I’m looking for something playful. I’m 6’1” and around 200lbs.

I’m wondering if Jason has had a chance to try the 190cm yet.
Is this the size you would recommend for me?

Also for 2013-14 Line recommends mount at -6cm and pollard recommends -2.5.
Why has Line changed the recommendation so dramatically as I don’t think anything other than artwork has changed? Would you go with the pollard recommended mount?

Henrik,
Unfortunately I haven’t been on the 190 SFB, but yes it is absolutely the size I would recommend for you. I have no idea why K2/Line would switch the recommended mount back to -6, definitely go with the Pollard mount at ~ -2.5.

hi jason,
it’s andrea from italy i really appreciated your reviews and the replies to the comments.
I’m 175 cm (5.9 inches) and 66kg (145lbs)
I use the SFB to ski pillows, trees and to do freestyle backcountry.
do you suggest the LINE SFB 178 or 184?
I know that the real length is different!
Thanks a lot

hey
I have the 12/13 opus in a 192, which was a blast to ride last season as my pow ski, but i am going to need something extra for my quiver this season. i need more of an everyday ski for everyday use, and i was thinking of the bacon because i love my opus so much, and the biggest deal breaker for me is the weight of the opus on everyday use, but i am worried that they also might overlap to much? i may go a little in the park with the extra ski i am buying.

I have played around with different mounting locations on Pollard’s skis, but none seem better than his recommended location. I’m actually quite shocked Line/K2 put the new “recommended” line on either the SFB or Opus.

Hey Jason,
I am a 24 year old female, been skiing since I was 4 years old, and in time for a new pair of skies. I have been talking around to different stores and several people have been recommending the SFB or the Rossi Soul 7? I ski trees and anything off groomers, not saying I don’t like groomers, just trend to veer of track. Usually hitting mountains in Washington State, or Utah when I can. What would you recommend? And if the SFB, what size would you suggest?

I need help buying a new pair of skis. I haven’t purchased a new set in 10 years. I’m torn between the SFB and the Opus. I’m 6′ 185 lbs. I’m a very aggressive skier who loves pushing the limits. I currently ski 188 cm. I just recently moved from the PA to CO and will be skiing both Utah and CO for the next few years. I enjoy skiing the trees, as well as hitting powder but I also want something that will do well on the groomers still. More than likely I will not hit the park, as I enjoy finding jumps along the trails. Would the Opus or the SFB be a better choice? And what length? Also what bindings are recommended?

Hi Jason,
I have the same dilemma, wondering what would fit best between a soul 7 (our a squad 7) or a Bacon for trees, all snow conditions out of groomers and a bit of groomers from time to time, no park though.
Also started at aournd 4, I’m 37 now, weighting 165lbs for 6.2, and want to learn a bit more about the new school side of skiing here in French ans Swiss alps.
Pretty nice site and reviews by the way !
Cheers,
Alban

Hi, Alban again from the Alps… just forget to say that I was thinking about the Bacon in 184cm, but the 190cm could be a better lenght for my height (6’2” – 189cm – for 165lbs – 75kg).
Thanks for your feedback Jason !
Alban

Thanks Jason for the great review. I ordered at a great closeout price 2013 Bacons in a 172cm and Kung Fujas at 169cm, expecting to return the pair I don’t keep. I’m 5’8″, 145 lbs. and want an everyday ski for trips out west. I’m more laid back than hard charger, preferring short radius turns to high speed and am regularly in bumps and tight trees, so I figured it made sense to go with Line’s suggested 172cm length (called them to confirm). But when the Bacons arrived I saw why everyone says to size up… these have about the same running length as my 164cm Salomon X-wing Fury and the center mount gives them about as much length upfront. Will I regret keeping these? If so, I’ll keep the K2 Kung Fujas (tape pull is 170cm versus 168.2 for the Bacons) since they have noticeably less rocker, seem a little stiffer for hardpack, and their suggested mount is further back so they may float better in pow. Any advice anyone (and no, paying $$$ for the 178cm Bacons isn’t an option)? Thanks.

The sickle is a beloved ski on this website and i greatly appreciated the comparison to the SFB. I was wondering how the 190 bacon compares to the sickle as far as stability and playfulness. Have you guys had an opportunity to ride the 190 SFB?

Looking to add Bacons to my Chetlers for a Utah 2-ski quiver. Normally would go right to the 190 length (6’3″, 185#, lifetime advanced skier), but also getting older (52) and need to balance handling and performance. How short do these ski?

I’m 5’11” 190lbs, aggressive advanced intermediate. Ski mostly off piste and looking for a ski that will allow me to have a bit of fun but will be stable for my aggressive style (no park) The sickle sounded like the PERFECT ski for me but I can only get the 12/13 model in 181. I’m thinking this may be too short???? Then looking at the SFB & Kastle xx110. Need to get them soon as I’ll be heading out to Colorado. Also, Im looking at Schizo bindings to give that flexibility of mounting points or Rossi Axial 2 120????

I wanted to post a follow up comment, and a response which I think will help a bunch of the recent posts regarding the SFB 190s. I’m 6’1″ and just around 200lbs. I have only had 4 days on them so far but have been very impressed. No deep days yet, so my comments will be based on skiing chop, crud in glades/trees, firm bumps and a bunch of on piste groomers.

190 length does not feel long at all. I have mine mounted on the pollard line at -2 and think this has been great. Most of my 30+ years of skiing has been on a more traditional mounting location, but on the SFB I totally agree with all of Jason’s comments. I was considering the marker schizo as bindings so I could play around with binding location but am happy I save the money and weight and just went with a marker griffin with Jason’s recommendation of the pollard midsole mark.

Flex: the 190 when hand flexed feels considerably stiffer than the 184s. I think this makes buttering little harder than on the 184s, but I have been really surprised at how stable they have been on the groomers. Carving has been far better than I had expected. Almost no tip chatter at reasonable speeds. I think the extra length and what I think is a stiffer ski really makes this really stable. (Still not a hard charging ski)

For all those bigger or aggressive skiers who have been wondering about the 190s. Go for them.

Hope this helps. Looking for some other comments from those who have had a chance to ride both the 190s and 184s to see if they agree regarding the stiffer flex.

Got the 190s. Did some research on mounting point, and found out a few things:

1) CENTER line is not true center, but center of the side-cut. It’s actually about 2 cm behind true center.

2) The ERIC line is 2 cm behind CENTER, and therefore is 4 cm behind true center. I think this is what people are referring to when they say “minus 2″ but I can’t say for sure. The RECOMMENDED line is another 4 cm further back.

3) If you use the K2/Line spec sheet to verify that the graphic shows the lines correctly (a good idea), make sure to measure along the bottom of the base, which includes for the curve of the tail.

Please elaborate on where you learned that. I found out (and reverified) a few weeks back that my 11/12 Opus and my sons 11/12 Bacons “recommended midsole” is the same as the “center” mark on the 13/14 Opus & Bacons (they are the same ski, aside from top sheet). I posted about it on epic ski and someone said that there was a tech memo about the mounting points on 13/14 Opus/Bacons being mismarked. The “Midsole” mark on the 11/12 should be the same as “erics mark” on the 13/14 but it is not. I sent an email to Line, but got no response.

With progressive ski designs, quick product development cycles, and yearly graphic changes, it seems that this kind of confusion is pretty common. I had a similar challenge when picking a mounting point for my Chetlers a couple years ago.

There are some smart posts about this ski from Gibmon on Epicski, which make an important point regarding the term “center”. For K2/Line, the term “center” apparently refers to the center of the side-cut shape, which is (theoretically) the optimal place for the boot midsole, so as to take advantage of the ski’s shape. For the Bacons, this point has been called various things in the past, such as “MIDSOLE”. On my 2014 Bacons, this point is simply labeled “CENTER”. To verify this, I looked up the spec sheet on the Line web site (see link). The sheet gives a single measurement for mounting distance, 933 mm from tail, along the base. It’s important to do the measuring correctly, along the underside, following the curve of the tail. On my 190, that measurement is exactly under the CENTER mark on the top sheet.

The CENTER mark on the Bacon is not the same as the true physical center of the ski, which I think is part of the confusion. The CENTER mark is actually 2 cm behind the true center. The ERIC mark is 2 cm behind the CENTER mark. This means that the ERIC mark is actually 4 cm behind the true center. On my skis, I can prove that with a measuring tape.

Some posts here and elsewhere have talked about the “mistake” in mounting lines, although I haven’t examined other skis myself. If people use the word “center” differently, that could contribute to the confusion. Also, if people measure differently, using a straight-pull of a measuring tape, instead of along the base, that could also cause confusion. Of course there could also be inconsistencies or misprints in the graphics, which is why it’s wise to confirm the measurements yourself. When I dealt with this on my Chetlers a while back, part of the problem was that Atomic changed the line locations and the line spacing from year to year.

I can’t say whether the location preferred by EP himself has changed over the past couple years. My best guess is that the ERIC mark on my ski is at its intended location, which is 2 cm behind the side-cut center marked CENTER, and 4 cm behind the true center. That’s where I’m going to mount it.

Oh, and there’s a third option marked on the ski, 6 cm back from the side-cut CENTER mark, and 4cm back from the ERIC mark,, which makes for a whopping 8 cm behind the true center of the ski. This option is puzzlingly labeled RECOMMENDED. I’m ignoring it.

OK, personally (from all the info I can find and my personal measurements of 11/12s and 13/14s) I think that center is supposed to be center on the Opus and SFB. The Centers marks that are 2 cm back are the mis-marked ones. If you mount on “Erics line” on those, you will actually be 2 cm behind where it should be, but that wont be a big issue.

The comments elsewhere regarding side-cut center versus true center make a lot of sense to me. If that idea is correct, then CENTER as marked by K2/Line is not the overall tip-to-tail midpoint of the ski, but rather the midpoint of the side-cut and camber portions of the ski. That would seem to be the critical factor, given all the fancy rise and rocker that is designed into these skis. If that is the case, then the new Bacons, or at least the ones I have, are not mismarked. We would probably need the ski designer to tell us what their intent was to know for sure.

OK, maybe I overstated it. The line that’s 8 cm back from true center isn’t ridiculously far back, and might work in some settings. I just find it puzzling that they chose to label it “RECOMMENDED”, when everybody seems instead to prefer the ERIC line that is 4 cm more forward.

want a ski that allows me to ski all over the mountain and lets me progress as a skier. I ski at jay peak every weekend.I mostlyski natural bump runs and trees which have soft snow most of the year. The only problem is that there is ice and rocks mixed in.I want a ski that excels in moguls, trees, and a littlepow. The ski also needs to be stable because i will be on groomers during the early and late season. I like the rocker camber rockerprofile, I dont ski much park just a few jumps once and a while and never any rails. I am an intermediate to advanced skier. I dont ski superhard through trees and bumpsbut keep a good flowy pace through them.

So heres what im looking for an all mtn ski with a 90-110 width and a medium flex. I want a playful ski.I am 5′ 11″ andweigh 150. I am 16 years old. What ski is right for me.

Skisim considering

Line sir francis bacon(my top choice as of now)
Line blend
rossignol sin7
Salomon rocker 108
Moment pband j(dont really trust this brand because i havent heard a lot about them)

I would love to hear from people who ski the east of who have skied any of the skis i mentioned above

Im not sure if theese skis seem to wide for my circumstances but ive been skiing on a 170 dollar 75 mm waisted park ski and need to upgrade because i dont ski park.(it was i could afford)

For a couple teenagers how long would you say to go for a more dedicated soft snow day on the bacon? They are both 15 years old and about 5′ 6″ and 120-135 lbs. I’m thinking 178 cm as long as this gives them some growing room.

Great review! I’m 5’7″, 145lb, been skiing for 25 years and currently riding on 2013 Chronics 171 (all mtn) and 2010 Anthems 161 (park and indoors(hence the short size), looking for something that will work more as a solid all mountain/powder ski than the Chronics. I ski an even split of park/powder/piste (jibbing everywhere but also enjoy aggressive charging) but would like something fatter to take out for pow days. Skiing mostly in Europe what do you think would suit me more, the Opus or SFB? Or would you recommend a different ski entirely? Also what length would you suggest, I’m torn between the 178 or 184

Just in case you think it makes a difference to the choice, I’ve recently had to have my ACL and Meniscus reconstructed and haven’t ski’d since, not sure how this will affect how aggressively I ski…

Hello Blisterboys!!
Love the Bacon review and it was the reason for my recent purchase. I’m an EC guy skiing mostly boilerplate but do get occasional pow days, my quiver is now Prophet 98s in 186s and SFB in 184s and I can’t wait to stretch them out in the upcoming season. Keep up the great reviews.

I have these skis and they are awsome, very versatile in any kind of snow conditions. But i would like to know what kind of Ptex base they have. (P-TEX 1000, P-TEX 2000, P-TEX 2000 ELEKTRA, P-TEX 4000 ELEKTRA).
Do you know where i can find these information?

Like many others I’m wondering about length on the SFB, I’m 5′ 8 190#, currently I’m on the 174 scmitars and like them a lot and find them pretty stable even in the short length, but they don’t handle deep days very well. Intermediate/Advanced skier at Big Sky/Bridger Bowl. I only want one pair of skis for everything an was thinking about jumping to the SFB will there be a huge jump from the 174 rossis to the 184 SFB or should I go 178.

If you’re looking for float get the 184 since it should still be plenty maneuverable. Skis should be sized according to weight, not height. I’m 5’8″ and 145 lbs. and wouldn’t want to go shorter than the 178 (about even with the top of my head). My 5’3″ friend is skiing the 172 (several inches over her head) and loves how quick turning they are despite coming from a pair of 156 Rossi S7s. We both are finesse skiers preferring short turns in the trees and bumps, and the skis don’t ever feel unwieldy. If you went with the 178 you might find it okay but not ideal, especially if you start to ski a little faster in crud or powder (plus it might have less bite on hardpack). If you get the 184, mount at the Eric’s Choice line… being so close to center the ski tips will feel shorter and more maneuverable. Enjoy your season!

Having a hard time deciding whether to buy the 178 Bacon or 179 sick day for my son as his big mountain/powder ski. He is light enough that I know they will both work for big mountain. What is the real difference between the two skis? Many thanks!

Jason Hutchins' time on the 182cm Black Diamond Zealot left him "nothing but impressed." If you're a lighter skier looking for a versatile ski (that doubles as a very good backcountry tool), take a look.